"If you don't believe that's the case, take your argument up with NASA and the Royal Astronomical Society, because they know a lot more about it than me, but for now I'm happy to rely on their expertise to support my claim."

Right, and astronomers are talking about this observable universe. Physicists are taling about the possibility of multiple universes and they are possible. You're still cherry picking.

@Conservative Man: "@Jamiet: I did answer your question. See my post before the +1 post."

Sorry, I owe you an apology. You did indeed answer, and I failed to notice it.

Your answer was:

"Because I see no evidence or possibility of the universe being created on its own.

In response to that I ask: What makes you certain that the universe was created at all?

Also:

"However, is it not still possible that before our universe began, God existed in a sort of pre-universe, with only him. And then He created the rest of the universe and time aroung Him."

I don't see any reason why that would be the case. Also, I don't like your suggestion of the concept of "before time". There is no "before time". The very concept of 'before' is temporal. You can't have 'before' without the existence of time. The phrase "before time" is an oxymoron.


@ Crazy Anglican: "You're still cherry picking."

So when you quote a single dictionary definition and keep pointing people to that, that's fine, but when I quote definitions from three sources, two of them respectable scienfic sources, that's cherry picking?

*scientific

@Jamiet: "What makes you certain that the universe was created at all?" Are you asserting the possibility that this is all part of someone's dream of something of that nature? Because while that is possible, I believe it is more likely for the universe to be real. This is why: For the universe to be fake, our senses would have to be fooling us. Now, we do not know whether our senses are fooling us or not. There is an equal chance of each one, so there is a 50/50 chance. Now, if our sensses are not fooling us, then the universe is real, since we sense that. So there is a least a 50% chance of the universe being real. Now if our senses are fooling us, the universe could be real, or it could be not real. There is an equal chance of each one, so each possiblility gets a 50% chance out of the 50% chance that our senses are fooling us, which equals 25% each. If you add the 25% chance of the universe existing there with the already established 50%, you get a 75% chance of the universe existing and 25% chance of it not existing.

"I don't see any reason why that would be the case. Also, I don't like your suggestion of the concept of "before time". There is no "before time". The very concept of 'before' is temporal. You can't have 'before' without the existence of time. The phrase "before time" is an oxymoron." Think of it more as this: When (and I use the word when for lack of a better word) there was no time.

@ Conservative Man:

"Are you asserting the possibility that this is all part of someone's dream of something of that nature?"

No, absolutely not. I am sure the universe does exist. What I mean is, you do NOT think god was created by some external force, so why are you so certain that the universe WAS?

Better still: You believe that god could have existed forever without having been created. Why could this not be true of the universe?

The laws of General Relativity imply that the universe has had a beginning. And from experimental observations (i.e. astronomy) we know that there has been a time when the universe was so hot and dense that many elementary particles did not exist. To get such a high energy density, the universe had to be extremely small. So there is theoretical and experimental evidence of the big bang, which is so convincing that the theory has now become accepted in physics.

@Jamiet: God did not exist forever because there was no time. God is not bound by time. The universe however, is, and so it needs a creator, unlike God.

@ Jamiet99uk

"So when you quote a single dictionary definition and keep pointing people to that, that's fine, but when I quote definitions from three sources, two of them respectable scienfic sources, that's cherry picking?"

When you appeal to the authority of a single branch of science when another contradicts it, you're cherry picking. Especially when the first seems only to be a working definition that defines their area of study.

Astronomy studies the observable universe and is only concerned with that. Theoretical multiple universes are outside of its scope so astronomers are not concerned with them. It's not surprising that their definition would only encompass what they would study.

Physics takes a look at how the universe works and comes up with theoretical models to explain it. Multiple universes are very much within its scope and are possible according to it.

Once again, you inappropriately say "Well, these guys say this" when they are really defining what they study, not making a statement in opposition to the physicists who define the term differently. There hardly seems to even be an argument here anymore. You've chosen a particular definition because you need it to be true. It doesn't seem to matter to you if it's merely a working definition that explains what a particular branch of science concerns itself with. Show me where NASA refutes multiple universes theory and you might have something. Until then you seem to be fabricating a disagreement between branches of science.

I don't believe in Atheists.

@Jamiet

Can you please give me a source for that NASA quote? I'm willing to bet it's outdated or was an simplification designed for a certain audience.

The real issue is that, like many things, Universe means different things. Just like a scientific law/theory is very different from a normal law or theory. Universe *can* mean absolutely everything, or it can mean a set of closed space/time. If you use the second definition, which is much more useful, then you can see that there can be an infinite number of these universes that cannot interact with one another. The former def. of Universe would then be called a Multiverse. In that case, you could not have more than one multiverse, but you could have many universes. This is the def. CA, I, and many physicists/mathematicians use.

@CM

You *can not* say this:

"Also, @Jamiet: "The Universe = Everything
Everything = The Universe"
That is true. However, is it not still possible that before our universe began, God existed in a sort of pre-universe, with only him. And then He created the rest of the universe and time aroung Him."

You are blatantly contradicting yourself. Either the Universe contains everything (including God, in which case he isn't a god) or the Universe contains everything except God. You can not have it both ways.

@Abge: "Either the Universe contains everything (including God, in which case he isn't a god)" How would that make Him not a god?

Could not God (who is supposedly all powerful and all mighty) make himself part of the universe by incorporating himself into every piece of matter and every wave of energy? Then he not only would be in the universe. He would *be* the universe.

Oh, and I posit this concept. We are three dimensional beings traveling along a "fourth dimension" (for lack of a better phrase) we call time. Could not God exist in a fifth undetectable dimension influencing and moving around amongst everything in the fourth like us looking at a drawing and altering it?

@CM
"@Abge: "Either the Universe contains everything (including God, in which case he isn't a god)" How would that make Him not a god?"

Because he would be constrained to this universe making him not omnipotent.

@Draug

Calling Time the fourth dimension isn't a very good practice. You can have N-Dimensional spaces and Time. They're separate things, in a way. But yes, I see no reason why something couldn't operate in a 3 + Space

That's why I said for lack of a better term. Time is really a measurement of change. To have existed before time means to have existed before entropy started. But I like to think of God existing both in and out of the universe by having the universe be part of Himself while at the same time he looks down at the universe from other dimesnions unknown to us. As I said, much like we could look at and alter a pencil sketch we were constantly perfecting, God can do the same with the universe.

@CM
"God did not exist forever because there was no time. God is not bound by time. The universe however, is, and so it needs a creator, unlike God."
sorry but this is an example of a deist phrase that just doesn't make any sense to me

@principians - so because your mind is to simple to conceive of something outside of time, it can't be? I suppose the concept of the universe being infinite and earth being in a solar system on one arm of the Milky Way and not the center of the universe is impossible because early man couldn't conceive and wrap their mind arounds the idea that they weren't the center of everything.

what use is a god that man cannot understand? same as no god at all.

Why would you want one that you could?

i dont, question is what use is one you cant?

@draugnar, Mr. Complex Mind, it can be, of course. Or it can be not...
and sorry but that phrase still doesn't make any sense to me

the universe could be orbiting around us, its possible, pretty sure it orbits around my dick

don't drink and discuss

@Abge: "Because he would be constrained to this universe making him not omnipotent." Okay, but you also metioned God being outside of the universe not being able to change anything about the universe. That would also make Him not omnipotent. So why can't we just make Him omnipotent and say that he can go into and out of the universe at will?

+1 abgemacht. I think the problem here (as outlined so well by abgemacht) is that quantum theory is so mind boggling weird and complicated that very very few people (me included) can wrap their minds around it. Even the experts can't agree and there is still a lot unexplained. All we can say for sure it the the thery(ies) hold true. Schrödinger's cat is neither dead nor alive until we open the box!

I won't pretend to have read all 300 replies to this thread.

@ConservativeMan & cohorts:

Why are you arguing about possibilities? You are not going to get to a proof that way. No argument about what is or is not metaphysically possible for a deity is going to get you to a proof of God. The cleverest arguments of this variety (and they have been attempted for 3000 years) either are not proofs or are logically nonsensical attempts at proofs.

You need to come up with something else if you are going to convince people, but I cannot see -- unless you are a man of new genius and insight -- where you are going to find evidence of God's existence. This is certainly not to claim such a thing is impossible, but I doubt, and I am sure you agree, that you have no such evidence on your person or in your mind. There is no such evidence at present. That's the end of the debate.

The hypothesis of God's existence has no evidence to its credit. In this the hypothesis shares character with thousands of other meritorious but ultimately bunk ideas.